Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

###################################################

Quote of the Week: “Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.” John von Neumann

###################################################

Number of the Week: 30%

###################################################

Which Way Now for SEPP?

Get ready for the worst — in 2013 and after:

An avalanche of economy-crippling EPA regulations, soaring energy prices, and a White House that has Climate Change as its centerpiece. President Obama acknowledged as much in his acceptance speech, when he said he wanted to “pass on a country that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” [NB: The planet hasn’t warmed for the past 16 years!]

My real concern is for young people who will never know what America was like — or might have been. They will pay the price in reduced standard of living and job opportunities — and, more importantly, in reduced Freedom.

We may already be on the ‘slippery slope’ — with the ‘takers’ outvoting the ‘producers.’

OECD projects that China will overtake the US as the world’s largest economy in 2016

My hope is that the US is not beyond repair. Let us pray — each in his own way.

What we are up against

The environmental movement is arguably among the best-funded and most popular of the interest groups composing the Left today. They raise and spend billions of dollars a year, a fair amount of it coming from governments and duped donors. The five top energy and environment issues in 2013 will likely be:

· EPA regulations on coal-powered electric generation to the point of eliminating new coal-fired power plants.

· proposals for carbon taxes – or worse

Stopping them requires exposing their abuse of sound science (including the hot topic of global warming), abuse of courts, and their alliances with groups on the far anti-human Left.

Fortunately, other groups are actively opposing thus; it’s not necessary for SEPP to duplicate their good efforts. We already work closely with such groups and support them by providing scientific back-up.

Among SEPP’s major achievements was the first demonstration of absence of a ‘scientific consensus’ (the 1995 ‘Leipzig Declaration’) and the publication of booklets or other responses to the four climate-science assessments of the IPCC, culminating in setting up NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) in 2007. Since then, we have published two major NIPCC reports and two summaries. Our plan calls for another (final) report and summary in 2013.

In the case of a Romney election victory, I had planned to lay out a road map for Romney-Ryan, focusing on eliminating the current Endangerment Findings of the EPA. The EF is the basis for all carbon-dioxide regulations, whether for power plants or road vehicles. Remove the EF and most of EPA’s proposed regulations would collapse.

On science we are completing a review of the state of climate science that addresses the same audience as IPCC. “Climate Change Reconsidered – 2013” will be the third of this series of NIPCC reports published for us by the Heartland Institute.

Serving as an “expert reviewer” on the forthcoming 5th Assessment report of the UN-IPCC, I can tell you without breaking confidence that the IPCC fails to make its case for AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Here is the abstract of talks I will be giving over the next couple months.

Evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is put forward in IPCC’s chapter 10 on “Attribution.” However, NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) demonstrates that this evidence cannot survive scrutiny.

The most feared consequence of putative AGW is an accelerated rise in global Sea Level. However, a detailed analysis of available data does not support the claims of IPCC chapter 13.

We conclude therefore that all current international efforts to limit emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pointless, expensive, — and largely counter-productive.

On the policy side, we work mainly with established organizations, such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They are larger than we, have a talented staff of policy analysts and access to legal advice. Our contribution is to provide scientific back-up. For example, we were co-plaintiffs against the EPA, challenging their Endangerment Finding.

THIS WEEK:

On the Road Again: On November 28, Fred Singer will be leaving for another lecture tour in Europe. On November 30 he will be speaking at the EIKE Conference in Munich, co-sponsored by Heartland. On December 3, he will be in Geneva giving three talks: luncheon talk to the BSCC, an afternoon talk with the WMO, and an evening talk “The Climate Debate.” On December 5, he give a 3pm open lecture on “Skeptical about Climate Catastrophes” at the Google building in Zurich To RSVP contact Johan Branstroem +41 76 79 89 579. He will give another open talk in Vienna on Dec 7 at 6 pm. To RSVP contact Gabriella Engler at the F. von Hayek Institute. For additional information please contact Ken@SEPP.org.

*******************

The Race to Doha: On Monday, November 26, the 18th annual Conference of Parties (COP 18) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) opens in Doha, Qatar, for a two-week session to try to reach an agreement for the control of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions replacing the expiring Kyoto Protocol. [The setting is ironic; the opulence of Doha represents the benefits of a petroleum-based state economy.] Up to now, the prospects appear dim for a bold new treaty for international control of the economies of many nations by controlling CO2 emissions. The leaders of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa appear to be unwilling to subject their citizens to international control which would drastically increase the costs of electricity and curtail economic growth. They appear to be aware of the enormous benefits of economic growth to the citizens of their countries – something many leaders of developed countries appear to be blissfully ignorant. As long as the evidence supporting that claim that carbon dioxide emissions are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming remains illusionary, it is doubtful that China, India, etc will enter into international agreements limiting CO2.

The climate science as proclaimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is failing. According to surface temperature data published by the Hadley Center and the Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), these has been no warming trend for sixteen years. According to satellite data published by the University of Alabama, Huntsville, there has been no atmospheric warming trend (lower troposphere) for at least a decade (depending on how one interprets the data). The climate models on which the IPCC makes dire prophecies are failing significantly, and the knowledge of the climate system proclaimed by the IPCC is blatantly inadequate. The climate establishment is becoming desperate.

Now, many international organizations have become climate soothsayers by predicting dire consequences if an agreement is not reached. They appear to be in a race on who can predict the greatest increase in temperatures in the shortest time. Dire predictions from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Metrological Organization (WMO) were expected, because they are the parent organizations of the IPCC. UNEP claims that current emissions are far greater than those consistent with an artificially contrived 2°C limit to temperature increase for pre-industrial temperatures. Of course, the industrial area began during the Little Ice Age, the coldest period since the last major ice age. UNEP states that without controls temperatures would increase by 3 to 5°C by the end of the century.

Seeing all the fun, other international organizations have joined the race. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, the International Energy Agency (IEA) had as point one in its summary of the World Energy Outlook, 2012, a prediction of 3.6°C. Journalist Peter Foster discovered the IEA rather cheated, buried in the report was the statement that the increase would take place by 2200 – not this century as most who read the summary would assume.

Perhaps the most disturbing prediction came from the World Bank which predicted a 4°C rise by the 2060s. This is disturbing because it has long been considered that one of the missions of the World Bank was to promote economic growth in lesser-developed countries. One of the most important components of economic growth is affordable electricity and for many lesser-developed countries, the most affordable electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, which, generally, emit more CO2 than other major forms of electricity generation.

In its slick publication, Turn Down the 4° Heat, the World Bank appears to have changed its mission. No doubt, any country that desires to obtain a World Bank loan for a coal-fired power plant to provide needed electricity for its citizens will face far greater hurdles now than in the past. Please see links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Problems Within the Orthodoxy, Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?, and Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Please note that the word “predictions” was used above rather than the more technically correct word “projections.” The climate models have never been verified and validated, and projections is the correct term. However, the studies are being treated as scientific certainty, which they are not, so the term “predictions” is used.

What about the predictions of the World Metrological Organization?

******************

Number of the Week: 30% In its November press release stating that greenhouse gas concentrations [GHG] in the atmosphere reached an all time-high in 2011 [a modern high] the World Metrological Organization (WMO) stated: “Between 1990 and 2011 there was a 30% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping long-lived gases.” Further: “Carbon dioxide is the single-most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade.” [Boldface added]. The WMO failed to mention that there has been no corresponding increase in temperatures for over a decade.

Since there is no trend of increasing temperatures, while radiative forcing has increased, clearly there is something wrong with the theory and the models proclaimed by the IPCC. Please see link under Defending the Orthodoxy.

******************

Rewards and Punishments: Ross McKitrick has a slide presentation clearly demonstrating the unequal distribution of benefits and costs to the global society from international limits on CO2 emissions, provided there is not clear evidence that CO2 emissions cause unprecedented and dangerous global warming. According to McKitrick, the benefits are largely psychological, accruing to wealthy urban westerners. The costs are real costs falling on the poor, particularly in 3rd world communities with no electricity.

McKitrick gives an example of the difficulty of obtaining World Bank financing a much needed power plant in South Africa that would benefit the poor. Let us hope that the new World Bank report, discussed above, does not signal a policy change of the World Bank to deny such loans in the future. Please see link under Seeking a Common Ground.

[There is little reason to believe that the bulk of the $100 Billion in annual transfers from Western nations to 3rd world nations, as demanded by the UN, will actually benefit the poor.]

******************

Limiting Growth: Western politicians are almost falling over themselves in their efforts to limit economic growth and drive up electricity costs to their citizens. Few have taken notice of a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It states: “On the basis of 2005 purchasing power parities (PPPs), China is projected to surpass the Euro Area in a year or so and the United States in a few more years, to become the largest economy in the world, and India is projected to surpass Japan in the next year or two and the Euro area in about 20 years.” Further: “The United States is expected to cede its place as the world’s largest economy to China, as early as 2016. [Boldface added] India’s GDP is also expected to pass that of the United States over the long term.”

Is there any doubt why China and India do not wish to limit carbon dioxide emissions? Please see link under Economic Issues.

******************

EPA Endangerment Finding: There appears to be little doubt that the EPA will use its finding that GHG emissions (actually CO2 emissions) endanger public health and welfare. SEPP has been unable to find any scientific basis for EPA’s claim to the Federal court of 90 to 99% certainty in its findings. If any readers are aware of such a calculated certainty, please contact Ken@SEPP.org.

******************

Climate Dialogue: A new group, Climate Dialogue, has been formed to promote the exchange of ideas regarding Climate Science. Both climate experts and the general public are welcome to participate. The first issue addressed is the melting of the Arctic: “What are the causes of the decline in Arctic sea ice? Is it dominated by global warming or can it be explained by natural variability?”

The discussion questions for the first issue are:

1) What are the main processes causing the decline in Arctic sea ice?

2) How unusual is the current decline in historical perspective?

3) What is the evidence for a substantial role of “global warming” in the current Arctic sea ice decline?

4) What is the evidence for a substantial role of natural variability (AO, AMO, NAO, PDO)?

5) What percentage of the recent decline would you attribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gases?

6) Do you think the Arctic could be ice free in the (near) future and when do you think this could happen?

The organization has promise of being an excellent forum for the exchange of ideas on all sides of the issues. Such forums are much needed and SEPP gives them best wishes. Please see link under Seeking a Common Ground.

******************

ABC: Jo Anne Nova reports that a science program broadcast by the Australian Government – owned Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) equated global warming skeptics with pedophiles. Argumentum ad hominem has long been a standard tool of those criticizing skeptics and reflects that those making such attacks cannot develop logical reasons why the skeptics are wrong. Let us hope that ABC has not fully reached that level. Please see link under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

******************

WUWT-TV: Anthony Watts is uploading the videos from his 24-hour show on global warming skeptics. Since he is not well financed, the process is slow with the equipment he has. No doubt, there are many installments that TWTW readers may wish to review. Please see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy – WUWT-TV.

******************

Secret Accounts: CEI’s Chris Horner continues to seek the secret email accounts used by public officials to conduct public business away from public scrutiny. He continues to unveil official deception and deceit regarding these accounts that should be open to the public. Please see Article # 1 and link under Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes.

******************

Amplifications and Corrections: James Wallace correctly noted that the October 6 TWTW contained an error in tense. The corrected statement is: The US has passed Russia as the leading producer of natural gas and is projected to pass Russia as the second largest producer of oil.

Richard Lindzen amplified comments on the iris effect:

“[Ken] got the story a little wrong. In paragraph 15 of the attached, Trenberth and Fasullo explicitly indicate that what they are seeing is the iris, but then proceed to cite papers that allegedly disprove what both they and we found. Of course the papers they cite are, in fact, silly, and we did publish the responses, but our responses are never mentioned. There are other papers that have confirmed what we found, and they all go through the litany of saying that our theory has been ‘disproven’ or, in the environmental literature ‘discredited.’ Apparently, this is needed in order to publish anything supportive of the iris. I spoke about this long ago at NASA-Goddard.”

******************

Quote of the Week: One can speculate what the famous mathematician John von Neumann would have said about the climate models used by the IPCC. According to reports, the modelers are not limiting the number of parameters by using empirical research to establish values for them. Instead, they are increasing the number of parameters. Would von Neumann say something along the line: with the IPCC parameters I can make an elephant do acrobatics on a tightrope?

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

Dissent is growing and skepticism is taking root in Germany, as one prominent figure after another begin to speak out. This all goes back to Prof. Fred Singer’s visit to Germany 2010, which produced an uproar, especially among the Greens and Socialists.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which now covers only 18 per cent of global GHG emissions. Under the Protocol, 37 states – mainly developed countries – have agreed to legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments. It has yet to be ratified by the US, while NZ, Canada, Japan and Russia have said they would not sign up to a second round when the commitment lapses at the end of 2012.

[SEPP Comment: The third of a three part essay describing the convoluted process to establish international control of greenhouse gases and the exaggerations by international organizations.]

They compared two possible future CO2 scenarios: a concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere projected for the end of the century of 850 parts per million (ppm) versus a more aggressive projection of 1370 ppm. The first approximates the current rate of increase.

The average temperature for the Earth, or any region or even any specific place is very difficult to determine with any accuracy. At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same place they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. Weather stations are relatively few and located very irregularly. Well-maintained stations with good records going back a century or more can be counted on one’s fingers. Even then only maximum and minimum temperatures or ones at a few particular times of day are usually available. Maintenance, siting, and surrounding land use also all have influences on the temperatures recorded.

Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are claiming a victory after striking a deal which paves the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations and wind farms but how long will it last, asks Rowena Mason.

With a new round of climate negotiations about to get underway, Christiana Figueres, head of the United Nations climate organization, explains in a Yale Environment 360 interview why, despite the obstacles, she thinks the world community is slowly inching its way toward an agreement.

[SEPP Comment: According to Montford, the real common ground of disagreement is that we do not know if carbon dioxide emissions are a major problem or not. Can we call this lack of knowledge the consensus?]

Based on current pledges, global average temperatures could rise by three to five degrees Celsius (5.4 to 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit) this century — way above the two degree Celsius being targeted, said a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report.

Die Zeit also focuses on Fred Singer and the late Frederick Seitz, who they write are “part of an industry-financed complex of associations and institutes that has grown up around Washington, a sort of Potemkin village of science, populated by paid experts who serve the interests of their clients. […] A well-oiled, self-perpetuating denial machine“.

[SEPP Comment: Over the last 160 years the earth did not warm faster than it did following the Younger Dryas. Further, the total ice mass was far greater than today. Any comparisons must take this into account.

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Turn Down the 4° Heat

Why 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided

A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and , Climate Analytics, Nov, 2012

[SEPP Comment: The gap is the difference in GHG emissions between what the UNEP projects is needed to keep temperatures from rising above 2 C during the industrial era and the current pledges to reduce emissions. Of course, it is pure speculation because the models used have not been validated.]

Ballarat has a great art gallery, with its original architecture and gold-financed 19th century acquisitions. I was stooging around there last week after enjoying its show on floral illustrations, dating back to William Dampier. In the main halls it has an “art trail” for children, directing them to half a dozen works. Each has a screed alongside backgrounding the painting and giving the kids some quizzes.

[SEPP Comment: The report claims harmful effects of global warming on the moose in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Fifty years ago there were no moose in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Perhaps they are the result of global warming.]

polistra, you fail to account for the fact that Obama no longer has to worry about re-election. He has 4 years to make sure that the changes he has made are not reversible. He’s going to make the most of them.